The West is openly trying to interfere in Georgia’s parliamentary elections, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said, stressing that voters in the former Soviet republic have every right to independently choose their own future.
In Saturday’s high-stakes election, the ruling Georgian Dream party, which seeks to build pragmatic relations with Russia, secured 54% of the vote, while various opposition forces garnered between 11% and 3% each, according to the Central Electoral Commission.
Pro-Western opposition parties, however, have refused to recognize the results, calling the vote a “constitutional coup.” The nation’s French-born President Salome Zourabichvili joined the chorus, urging the people to protest and claiming that Georgia had become a “victim of a Russian special operation.”
Speaking to reporters on Monday, Peskov unequivocally denied the allegations. “We are not trying at all and hardly have the opportunity to influence the development of the situation” in the country, he said, stressing that “it is the Georgian people’s business to make the relevant decisions.”
“However, we see completely unprecedented interference attempts from the West. They are trying not only to twist Tbilisi’s arms, but also to impose their terms. It is hard for me to imagine how the proud Georgian people can tolerate such ultimatums that pour in daily.”
On Sunday, the EU Commission issued a statement voicing concerns of “a tense environment, with frequent compromises in vote secrecy and several procedural inconsistencies” as well as “irregularities” in the election, insisting that those issues must be addressed. European Council President Charles Michel also noted that Georgia must prove its commitment to continuing the path to joining the bloc.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has demanded that Georgia conduct an investigation into reports on violations during the vote while sounding the alarm about suspected “vote buying, and voter intimidation.”
This summer, Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze warned that pro-Western opposition in the country would open a “second front” against Russia in addition to the Ukraine conflict if it won the parliamentary elections. Around the same time, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service said that the US was seeking a regime change in the Caucasus country by fomenting protests during the vote.
Relations between the West and Tbilisi soured in recent months after Georgia passed the ‘foreign agents’ law requiring entities and individuals which receive more than 20% of their funding from abroad to register as “promoting the interests of a foreign power.” While its proponents insisted it would increase transparency, the EU condemned the legislation, warning that it goes against Georgia’s goal of joining the bloc.
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has revealed that he faced a suspected second assassination attempt due to his stance on the Ukraine conflict. The incident earlier this month came after Fico survived a shooting in May by an individual who was reportedly sympathetic towards Kiev.
Another armed man was detained at an event commemorating a World War II battle in eastern Slovakia in early October, the prime minister said in an interview to Bratislava-based internet outlet Standard on Sunday.
Fico said the man “hates” him because of his “attitudes towards Ukraine.” According to the prime minister, “a fully loaded weapon” was found on the suspect when he passed through a metal detector.
The event in question was held on October 6 to mark the 80th anniversary of the Battle of the Dukla Pass between German and Soviet forces on the border with Poland. The celebrations were attended by Fico, Slovak President Peter Pellegrini, and members of the government and parliament.
Fico has been an outspoken critic of the EU’s policy of providing lethal aid to Ukraine in its fight with Russia, calling instead for a diplomatic solution to the conflict.
In May, Fico was shot four times at close range by a man who, according to Slovakia’s Special Criminal Court, was largely motivated by the decision by the prime minister and his government not to send arms to Ukraine.
“I was lucky,” Fico told Standard, commenting on the shooting. He went on to describe the alleged shooter, Juraj Cintula, as a political activist who had attended Fico’s public meetings while “probably” planning the attack.
Following the shooting, Fico argued that the assassination attempt emanated from foreign-backed politicians who refuse to accept his government’s policies that prioritize Slovakia’s interests over the agendas of major Western powers.
Iran’s embassy in Brussels has vehemently dismissed baseless accusations and fabricated claims about Tehran’s alleged involvement in threats on European soil, saying the Islamic Republic stands at the forefront of the fight against terrorism.
The embassy issued a statement on Saturday in response to allegations leveled against Iran by EU Commissioner for Equality Helena Dalli at the European Parliament plenary on Tuesday.
During the session, Dalli expressed growing concern about Iran’s alleged hybrid threats on European soil, claiming, “There are credible reports about: the role of Iranian state bodies in planning and aiding recent attacks in a number of Member States; about threats to members of the Iranian diaspora in Europe, and about cyber actions, or influence campaigns trying to create divisions in our societies.”
She also repeated allegations about Iran’s continued support for Russia in the war against Ukraine “through the provision of weapons, such as drones and, more recently, missiles.”
In its statement, the Iranian embassy said the Islamic Republic is a victim of terrorism itself and stands at the forefront of combating terrorism, particularly against the Daesh terrorist group.
“Iran strongly rejects any allegations regarding the alleged involvement of Iranian-affiliated institutions in so-called threats on European soil,” it added.
The statement also rejected the unfounded claims about Iran’s shipment of ballistic missiles to Russia for use in the conflict in Ukraine.
“Iran reiterated its neutrality policy towards this conflict and its support for resolving disputes through peaceful means and diplomacy,” the embassy said.
Instead of debating on fabricated illusory threats, the European Parliament member states are better off focusing on the most urgent and imminent threat to international peace and security as the result of the Israeli regime’s ongoing genocide and aggression in Gaza and Lebanon as well as its warmongering across West Asia.
Israeli crimes have brought about catastrophic consequences for civilians, human rights, and regional and international peace and stability, it emphasized.
“The EU Member States are expected to exercise maximum vigilance in the face of Iranophobic campaigns in Europe orchestrated by third parties, particularly the Israeli regime, whose aim is to destroy relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Europe,” the embassy said.
It urged the EU states to act responsibly and refrain from any measure that would make the long-standing relationship between Iran and Europe further adversely impacted.
Russia launched what it called a special military operation in Ukraine in February 2022 partly to prevent NATO’s eastward expansion after warning that the US-led military alliance was following an “aggressive line” against Moscow.
Iran has maintained its policy of impartiality toward the conflict. However, the US and its Western allies have claimed that Iran is supplying ballistic missiles to Russia for direct use in the Ukraine war.
Iran has repeatedly rejected the unfounded accusations, saying the Western countries are escalating the war through the supply of advanced weaponry to Kiev.
Russia has also warned that the flow of Western arms to Ukraine is prolonging the conflict.
Russia considers NATO’s incursion into Ukraine to be an existential threat, and NATO has openly stated its intention to make Ukraine a member state after the war. Without a political settlement that restores Ukraine’s neutrality, Russia will therefore likely annex the strategic territories it cannot accept ending up under NATO control and then turn what remains of Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state. As the war is being lost, the rational policy for the Europeans would therefore be to offer an agreement based on ending NATO’s eastward expansion to save Ukrainian lives, territory and the nation itself. Yet, no European leader has been able to even suggest such a solution publicly. Why?
Present the average European politician, journalist or academic with the following thought experiment: If you were an advisor to the Kremlin, what would be your advice to Russia if there are no negotiations to resolve the Ukraine War? Most would feel morally compelled to give ridiculous answers such as advising the Kremlin to capitulate and withdraw, even if Russia is on the cusp of victory. Any impulse to adhere to reason and address Russia’s security concerns would likely be deterred by the threat of being shamed for “legitimising” Russia’s invasion.
What explains the decline of strategic thinking, pragmatism and rationality in European politics?
Europe’s Reality as a Social Construction
The political class that emerged in Europe after the Cold War have become excessively ideological and committed to narratives to socially construct new realities. The Europeans embrace of postmodernism entails questioning the existence of objective reality as our understanding of reality is shaped by language, culture and unique historical perspectives. The postmodernists therefore often seek to change narratives and language as a source of political power. If reality is a social construction, then the grand narratives can be more important than facts. Indeed, ideological narratives must be defended from inconvenient facts.
The European project had the benign intentions of creating a common liberal democratic European identity that would transcend the divisive national rivalry and power politics of the past. The relevance of objective reality is contested, and narratives about reality are believed to reflect power structures that can be dismantled and reorganised.
The prevalence of constructivism and focus on “speech acts” in the EU has led to the belief that even using realist analysis and discussing competing national interests entail legitimising realpolitik and thus socially constructing a more dangerous reality. Speech acts refer to the use of language as a source of power by constructing political realities and influencing outcomes. By reducing the focus on security competition in the international system, it is assumed that power politics can be mitigated.
Is it possible to socially construct a new reality? Do we transcend security competition by not addressing it or do we neglect the responsible management of security competition. Can we transcend national rivalries by focusing on common values or does the neglect of national interests result in decline?
Socially Constructing a New Europe
The concept of the “rhetorical trap” explains how the EU reached a consensus to offer membership to Central and Eastern European states when it was not in the self-interest of all EU member states to do so. The rhetorical trap was set by first having member states accept the ideological premise that the legitimacy of the EU project was based on the integration of liberal democratic states. By appealing to the values and norms as the foundation of the EU, a rhetorical trap was set as the sense of moral obligation shamed EU member states from vetoing the enlargement process. The use of language and framing could thus influence European states to not act in their own interests as they were shamed into compliance.
Schimmelfennig, who introduced the concept of the rhetorical trap, argues that “politics is a struggle over legitimacy, and this struggle is fought out with rhetorical arguments”.[1] The rhetorical trap simplifies a complex issue into a binary choice of either supporting the enlargement process or betraying liberal democratic ideals. The moral framing shuts down important discussions about the potential downsides of accepting new members and how to address these challenges in the best way. Dissent could be crushed as framing the issue as a moral imperative meant that those who even questioned the moral framing could be accused of undermining the sacred values that uphold the legitimacy of the entire European project.
The concept of “Euro-speak” entails using emotional rhetoric to legitimise an EU-centric understanding of Europe that de-legitimises alternative concepts of Europe. Centralising decision-making and transferring power from elected parliaments to Brussels is typically referred to as “European integration”, “more Europe”, or “ever-closer Union”. Neighbouring non-member states that adhere to the EU’s external governance are making the “European choice”, confirming their “European perspective”, and embracing “shared values”. Dissent can be delegitimised as “populism”, “nationalism”, “Euro-phobia” and “anti-Europeanism”, which undermines the “common voice”, “solidarity” and the “European dream”.
The language has also changed in terms of how the West asserts power in the world. Torture is “enhanced interrogation techniques”, gunboat diplomacy is “freedom of navigation”, dominance is “negotiations from a position of strength”, subversion is “democracy promotion”, coup is “democratic revolution”, invasion is “humanitarian intervention”, secession is “self-determination”, propaganda is “public diplomacy”, censorship is “content moderation”, and the more recent example of China’s competitive advantage that is labelled “over-capacity”. George Orwell’s concept of Newspeak entailed constraining language to the point it became impossible to express dissent.
NATO and the EU: Redividing Europe or “European Integration”
Western leaders initially recognised that abandoning an inclusive pan-European security architecture by expanding NATO and the EU would likely provoke another Cold War. The predictable consequence of constructing a new Europe without Russia would be to redivide the continent and then fight over where the new dividing lines should be drawn.
President Bill Clinton cautioned in January 1994 that NATO expansion risked to “draw a newline between East and West that could create a self-fulfilling prophecy of future confrontation”.[2] Clinton’s Secretary of Defence, William Perry, even considered resigning in opposition to expanding NATO. Perry noted that most people in the administration knew the betrayal would create conflicts with Russia, yet they believed it did not matter as Russia was weak.[3] George Kennan, Jack Matlock and a multitude of American political leaders also framed it as a betrayal against Russia and warned against redividing Europe. These concerns were also shared by many European leaders.
What happened to the discourse and warnings about instigating another Cold War? The narrative of the EU and NATO as a “force for good” that advance liberal democratic values had to be defended against the “outdated” narrative of power politics. Russian criticism of reviving the zero-sum security architecture of bloc politics was presented as evidence of Russia’s “zero-sum mentality”. Russia’s inability to recognise that NATO and the EU were positive-sum actors that transcend power politics allegedly revealed Russia’s inability to overcome the dangerous mindset of realpolitik, which was caused by Russia’s enduring authoritarianism and great power ambitions. The EU was merely constructing a “ring of friends”, while Russia allegedly demanded “spheres of influence”.
Russia was presented with the dilemma of either embracing the role of an apprentice aiming to join the civilised world by accepting NATO’s dominant role as a force for good, or Russia could resist NATO’s expansionism and “out-of-area missions” but then be treated as a dangerous force to be contained. Either way, Russia would not have a seat at the table in Europe. Liberal democratic tropes justified why the largest state in Europe should eventually be the only state without representation.
The expansion of NATO and the EU as exclusive blocs also imposes an “us-or-them” dilemma on the deeply divided societies in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. Yet, rather than recognising the predictable destabilisation of divided societies in a divided Europe, it is presented as positive-sum “European integration” despite the implicit decoupling from Russia. Societies prioritising closer relations with Russia rather than NATO and the EU are delegitimised for rejecting democracy while their leaders are dismissed as authoritarian “Putinists” who deprive their people of their European dream.
The moral framing of the world convinced European leaders to support a coup to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit. It was common knowledge that only a small minority of Ukrainians desired NATO membership and that it would likely trigger a war, yet liberal democratic rhetoric still convinced European leaders to ignore reality and support disastrous policies. Common sense could be shamed.
Western political leaders, journalists and academics seeking to mitigate the security competition by addressing Russia’s legitimate security concerns are similarly accused of carrying water for Putin, repeating Kremlin talking points, “legitimising” Russian policies, and undermining liberal democracy. With the binary moral framing of good versus evil, intellectual pluralism and dissent are castigated as immoral.
Besides being plagued by war, Europe is also undergoing economic decline. The Europeans are buying Russian energy through India as an intermediary as they are morally obliged to follow failed sanctions. The virtue-signalling contributes to European industries becoming less competitive. The de-industrialisation of Europe is also caused by the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, yet the event that is destroying decades of industrial development is memory-holed as the only two suspects are the US and Ukraine. Furthermore, the US offers subsidies to the subsequent uncompetitive European industries if they relocate across the Atlantic. In the absence of acceptable narratives, the Europeans simply keep silent and do not defend their national interests. The narrative of liberal democracies united by values rather than divided by competing interests must be defended from inconvenient facts.
Diplomacy, Neutrality & the Virtue of War
Diplomacy does not conform with the constructivist effort to socially construct a new reality. The point of departure in international security is the security competition in which efforts to increase the security of a state can decrease the security of another. Diplomacy entails enhancing mutual understanding and pursuing compromise to mitigate the security competition.
The social constructivists often consider diplomacy to be problematic as it “legitimises” the security competition that recognises NATO can undermine legitimate Russian security interests. Furthermore, it risks legitimising the opponent and creating a moral equivalency between Western states and Russia. The European elites believe that [they can] legitimise outdated and dangerous concepts of power politics by engaging in mutual understanding. The absurd conviction that negotiation is “appeasement” has become normalised in Europe.
Diplomacy therefore has been reimagined as a relationship between a subject and an object, between a teacher and a student. In this relationship, NATO and the EU consider their role as “socialising” other states. As a civilising teacher, the Enlightened West uses diplomacy as a pedagogic instrument in which states are “punished” or “rewarded” by their preparedness to accept unilateral concessions. While diplomacy historically has been imperative during times of crisis, the European elites believe they must instead punish “bad behaviour” by suspending diplomacy once a crisis breaks out. Meeting with opponents during crises runs the risk of legitimising them.
Neutrality was until recently considered a moral stance that mitigates security competition and enables a state to serve as a mediator rather than becoming entangled and escalating conflicts. In a struggle between good and evil, neutrality is also deemed to be immoral. The belt of neutral states that existed between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries has now been dismantled and even war becomes a virtuous defence of moral principles.
How to Restore Rationality & Correct the Post-Cold War Mistakes?
The failure to establish a mutually acceptable post-Cold War settlement that would remove the dividing lines in Europe and enhance indivisible security has resulted in a predictable catastrophe. Yet, course correction requires nothing less than reconsidering the policies of the past 30 years and the concept of Europe at a moment when animosity is rampant on both sides. The European project was envisioned as the embodiment of Fukuyama’s “end of history” thesis and an entire political class has based their legitimacy on conforming to the idea that developing a Europe without Russia was a recipe for peace and stability.
Does Europe have the rationality, political imagination and courage to critically assess its own mistakes and contribution to the current crisis, or will all criticism continue to be denounced as a threat to liberal democracy?
[1] Schimmelfennig, Frank, 2003. The EU, NATO and the integration of Europe: Rules and rhetoric, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, page 208.
[2] B. Clinton, ‘Remarks to Multinational Audience of Future Leaders of Europe’, US Diplomatic Mission to Germany, 9 January 1994.
[3] J. Borger, ‘Russian hostility ‘partly caused by west’, claims former US defence head’, The Guardian, 9 March 2016.
“It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”
Henry Kissinger’s much-quoted statement after the American friend, dictator Nguyễn Văn Thiệu, took power in Vietnam in 1963 and shot the previous American friend, dictator Ngô Ðình Diệm, was reported by William F. Buckley Jr. When the Americans fled Vietnam headlong a decade later, they left their friends in the care of the communist Việt Cộng.
Meanwhile, Kissinger’s statement could be confirmed by a respectable line of other American friends, haphazardly Reza Shah Pahlavi, expelled from Iran in 1979, Saddam Hussein, executed in 2006, Afghan Mujahideen, recruited in 1978 to fight the USSR and then as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda prominent US enemies, Iraqi Kurds and Shiites, incited to rise against Saddam in 1991 and left to his retaliation, Mikheil Saakashvili, in 2008 incited to attack Russian regions of Georgia, today in a Georgian prison, Afghan friends, after fleeing in 2020 left in the care of the Taliban. And of course: Russia after 1992 and China in the new century. And: Ukraine and Europe since 2014.
“America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests,” Kissinger explained.
Ukrainian friend
Recently, I have come across a number of reflections from analysts and commentators expressing wonder at how unreasonable the US government is in encouraging Ukraine to further escalate a lost war. It is a natural curiosity, for a normal person who is repulsed by killing, tries to resolve disputes through negotiations, and sees war as the ultimate tragedy.
Any reasonable person would expect that if Ukraine has strong ties to both the EU and the Eurasian Union, it can play a useful role as a bridge between them. They would expect the conflict between the government and the protesters to end with a round table agreement. When it had already bloody escalated, they would have expected that the EU, Russia and the US would jointly enforce the agreement between Yanukovych and the opposition against armed fighters and that the shooting would be investigated by an international commission. When the coup government took power, they would expect pressure to be exerted on it not to provoke Russian-speaking Ukrainians with hostile actions. When the anti-coup federalists in the east refused to recognize the coup government, they would have expected the international community to push for the federalization of the country and the creation of a government with a share of both parts in order to preserve its integrity. As the Kiev government had already sent an army against the anti-coup federalists, they would have expected the international community to at least prevent massacres of the civilian population by artillery, rocket fire and aerial bombardment.
I also had a possible explanation:
However, if the task was to “force Russia to decide whether to intervene”, the entire Ukrainian development suddenly appears completely understandable and logical. Its strategy was outlined already in March by George Friedman: it will be fought on the battlefields of Ukraine and Moldova by an alliance of Visegrad battlegroups led by Poland, Romania and Azerbaijan.
The strategy wasn’t fulfilled in 2014. Russia decided not to intervene, the Visegrad battlegroups showed no interest, and the anti-coup federalists not only defended themselves, but inflicted a significant defeat on the Ukrainian army. America’s friend needed more thorough preparation.
The faked Minsk II agreement gave it eight years. During that time, anti-Russian hatred was whipped up, the country committed itself to its tradition of pro-Nazi war against Russia, and the army was trained for it and armed with the most modern technology. All that remained was to overcome Russian hesitancy to intervene.
Promises of admission to NATO, spectacular war preparations, plans to install medium-range missiles, the prospect of arming with nuclear weapons, terror against the Donbas population and the planned offensive to break its resistance finally convinced Russia of the necessity of at least a special military operation with the aim of ousting Zelensky’s government and replacing it with a more accommodating one in the manner of Prague 1968. However, the landing was already expected at the airport in Hostomel and the special military operation turned into an open war.
And again, one can wonder:
Why did the West stubbornly insist on expanding NATO to Ukraine when all the experts warned that it would inevitably lead to war? Against what Russian attack were they arming Ukraine when Russia refrained from intervening in 2014, when it would have had the best conditions for it? Why did they convince Ukraine not to respect the Minsk agreements, when they were the only guarantee of peace and – except for Crimea – its territorial integrity? Why did no one mention the protection of ethnic minorities when the Kyiv government ostracized the Russian-speaking population? Why didn’t anyone speak about the ongoing shelling of Donbas cities? Why did the West refuse to even consider the Russian proposal for a European security architecture? Why did they encourage Zelensky toward further and further provocations with strategic partnerships, ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons? Why did they prevent him from concluding the Istanbul peace agreement in March 2022, a month after the fighting began?
And again, a plausible explanation can be offered, which makes the entire Ukrainian development suddenly appear completely understandable and logical:
The brief was to “force Russia to decide whether to intervene.” The Russo-Ukrainian war is not an accident of the reckless policy of the West, but its carefully prepared goal.
A specific feature of American political culture is the public availability of information. There is no need to speculate, interpret and theorize.
“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union,” reads the Wolfowitz Doctrine of 1992. “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire,” writes Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1997. “The West wants to finish the job begun with the fall of the Berlin Wall and continue Europe’s march to the east… The great prize is Ukraine,” Washington Post writes in 2004.
“Yats[eniuk] is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience,” claimed Victoria Nuland while designing a new Ukrainian government on February 6, 2014.
“The [Donbas] settlements shall be liberated one by one, with armor going in first and wiping out the remaining pockets of resistance,” instructed the RAND Corporation in order to provoke Russian intervention and, after failing that, in April 2019 it developed a detailed scenario “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia.”
In June 2022, the American Helsinki Commission convened a conference on “Decolonizing (fragmentation) Russia.”
“Ukraine has trillions of dollars worth of critical minerals in their country. Vladimir Putin cannot be allowed to access that money,” Senator Lindsey Graham explained.
But first, friend Zelensky has to be convinced. The Russian army is equipped with outdated weapons and suffers from a lack of ammunition, low morale and poor command. Against the Ukrainian army, with modern arms and trained according to NATO guidelines, it has no chance, they lied to him. Ukraine is a bright beacon of Western democracy against Putin’s dark Eastern dictatorship, they flattered him. When Russia attacks, we will impose unprecedented economic sanctions against it, its economy will collapse, hunger will drive people into the streets, and Putin’s regime will be overthrown, they fantasized. And in particular, they promised military aid in a form that convinced him that NATO armies would rush to his aid.
Sobering up came immediately. Like Saakashvili before him, he quickly found out that “We are defending our state alone, the most powerful forces of the world are watching from afar,” that “NATO is afraid of a confrontation with Russia”. Too late. Requests for the establishment of a no-fly zone remained unheeded, requests for tanks, missiles and planes were half-heard with long reluctance only when the situation became critical, not even a desperate attempt to fire a missile at Poland and pass it off as a Russian attack on a NATO state was taken. Zelensky only receives promises of help for as long as it takes. “We have never spent money so well,” Lindsey Graham assures him, “Russians are dying”.
However, after the failed summer offensive of 2023, the money channel is also closing. America’s self-sacrificing friend Ukraine, with hundreds of thousands dead and tens of millions of refugees, faces financial, economic, military, geographic, demographic and political collapse. They won’t even allow part of Ukraine’s astronomical debts to be forgiven. Instead, Western corporations are buying up its remaining assets – agricultural, mineral and industrial – on the cheap.
Russian friend
In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz could have only one new rival in mind, posing a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union: the connection of Europe with Russia, especially German technology and capital with Russian natural resources, the Common European House from Lisbon to Vladivostok. And finally, Europe itself on the path to integration. China, America’s friend then, was not considered as a rival yet.
However, the way to prevent the emergence of a European-Russian rival is clear: divide et impera. To enrage them against each other, to weaken both and to induce a war between them. America has systematically devoted itself to this for thirty years. The nagging questions are answered.
The first decade was spent in the spirit of all-embracing friendship between the US, Russia and European countries, confirmed by the Malta Summit in 1989. American advisers rushed to help the Russian friend with neoliberal economic reforms, advantageously bought up Russian assets, liquidated its nuclear weapons, took away its experts and fissile material, established contacts with the new Russian oligarchs. Financial loans were rejected; the goal was to weaken Russia. Friend Russia sank to the brink of collapse.
Europe, economically consolidated and united by the values of peaceful coexistence, the rule of law, the social market and human rights, was a different issue. The path led in a detour, from the East, through New Europe, the post-communist states, with whose new elites the Americans had close relations since the days of dissent. It was no more difficult to introduce radical neoliberal reforms in countries disoriented by disintegration and profitably privatize their state assets than in Russia, but their role did not end there. In 1993, at the time of Russia’s deepest decline, Václav Havel and Lech Walęsa suddenly began to fear “Russian expansionism” and, “in order to preserve peace in Europe,” insisted on admission to NATO.
This is the key moment. For the first time, it was said that Russia is a threat to Europe and that NATO should expand to the East.
The first three countries are accepted in 1999 at the same time as the outbreak of the first international war in Europe since 1945 and the first combat engagement of NATO in its history, the bombing of Yugoslavia, Russia’s closest ally. Viktor Orbán prevented further escalation by rejecting the demand that Hungary invade Yugoslavia.
European friend
In the following years, the US achieved four key goals in Europe: to portray Russia as a dangerous enemy and isolate it from Europe, to expand NATO to its borders, to subjugate European political elites unconditionally, and finally to weaken Europe.
The last one was initiated by President Trump in 2017 with sanctions against the supply of cheap Russian gas, a symbol of European-Russian integration, with the aim of replacing it with expensive American gas. This is followed by measures against European trade surpluses and tariffs on steel, aluminum and cars. Significant are the references to Europe’s inability to defend itself against Russian aggression and its dependence on American intelligence and defense. They demand an increase in the military spending of NATO states to 2% of GDP, or more billions of European taxes for the US arms industry.
The 2020-2021 Covid operation was not targeted specifically against Europe, but it contributed to its weakening no less than other measures. In addition to the additional billions of dollars of European taxpayers transferred to pharmaceutical companies for absurdly high prices orders for ineffective vaccines, and in addition to the economic collapse due to lockdowns, it further deepened the decay of the already broken cohesion of European communities, increased the tension between establishments and citizens, and helped destroy democracy through censorship and repression.
With the rise of Joe Biden, Victoria Nuland and Antony Blinken, the architects of the Ukrainian-Russian war, the weakening of the European friend takes a turn. European politicians are pressured to agree to the termination of the Nord Stream and the introduction of “unprecedented sanctions” against Russia in the event of “aggression against Ukraine”, which even Zelensky himself does not believe in at the time. But Biden knows that he will eventually force Russia to intervene.
The Russian invasion unleashes a fanatical anti-Russian campaign. With outrageous rhetoric unheard since the 1950s, an orgy of unprecedented sanctions, the termination of the Nord Stream project sealed by its sabotage, the seizure of bank reserves and the disconnection of Russia from the banking system, and the boycott of Russian culture, sports, vodka and cats, the rift between Europe and Russia is complete.
Let’s not be fooled by the rhetoric. Nominally, the aim of the sanctions is to weaken Russia, but their – intended – parallel effect is to weaken Europe. Anti-Russian hysteria masks the demagogic arguments about “dependence on Russian gas” and the “financing of Russian aggression” as a pretext to replace cheap Russian resources, to which it owes its economic rise, with overpriced American ones. The sanctions affect more or less all European trade with Russia. Imports from Russia fell by 85% from early 2022 to May 2023, exports by 65%. Unlike Russia, which was able to compensate for the shortfall in Asia, Europe does not have a comparable replacement.
The pressure to disengage from trade with China, justified by alleged security risks and trade sanctions, pursues the same goal. However, unlike Russia, China is the EU’s largest trading partner with a 21% share of imports, larger than the US (12%) one, so the pressure rather encouraged latent reservations towards the US and resulted in only a vague formulation of prospective “risk reduction”.
The main drain on the European economy is, of course, Ukraine.
Arms deliveries have emptied European military warehouses, which will need to be replenished with state-of-the-art American technology. Not only to supplement, but also to increase thoroughly, because “after the victory in Ukraine, Russia plans to invade other European states”.
And let’s not overlook the differences. While European weapons for Ukraine are a taxpayer-funded gift, American ones are subject to a lend-lease agreement. Ukraine will pay them back for decades – by cheaply selling off land and raw materials to BlackRock and other American corporations.
The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022, provides $783 billion in subsidies to US-based businesses. This, in addition to the significant difference in energy prices, is another effective incentive for European companies to relocate to the US.
An overlooked financial drain are the consequences of American aggression paid for by European taxes. Refugees from countries ravaged by American aggression at the beginning of the century already meant a considerable burden for Europe. Illegal trafficking structures, establishing with them, quickly compensated for the drop in demand in West Asia with inexhaustible resources in Africa, especially after the destruction of Libya, which until then had functioned as a filter. The Ukrainian war then drove out millions of others, to whom Europe provides above-standard conditions for political reasons. Even more serious than the economic costs themselves are the social, political and cultural consequences, the polarization and disintegration of the European value system.
Even in 2011, GDP per capita in the EU was slightly higher than in the US ($15,800/$14,700 USD). Twelve years later, it is a third lower ($18,350/$27,400). Europe is in a phase of deindustrialization, which the crisis of the automobile industry due to cheap Chinese competition will significantly accelerate. While the USA has greatly strengthened its economy through the war, its European friend is facing a long-term economic and political decline.
Israeli friend
The relationship between the US and Israel, as observers note, has no parallels in history. It appears as if little Israel is the despotic ruler of the superpower USA. It collects an annual tribute from them, sends their army against its rivals, uses their veto in the Security Council to ensure its own impunity, has them finance the genocide of the Palestinians, drains their weapons potential, forces them to violate their own laws prohibiting the supply of arms to states developing nuclear weapons and is obstructing American humanitarian aid. In order to stifle criticism, it will abolish their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression and lead the US into international isolation.
At the same time, Israel has no mercy for its vassal. In 1967, it stole material for the development of the atomic bomb from the US, and there are indications of Israeli participation in the assassination of JF Kennedy, who wanted to prevent the nuclear armament of Israel. In the same year, Israel tried to sink the American ship Liberty and blame it on Egypt to get the US military to fight its war. Israel maintains an extensive espionage network in the US, steals their know-how without scruples and occasionally even sells it on. Very strong indications point to its involvement in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, with the intention of pushing the US into wars against its rivals. For years, it has been trying to provoke the US into war against the last of them, Iran, and after October 7, 2023, into a war against the Axis of Resistance. Israel infiltrated and paralyzed US intelligence services to make investigations of Israeli activities impossible, forged pretexts for war actions, and distorted information provided to the public and government administration.
It could be described as an example of a fatal friendship with Israel, but the reality is more complex. Some observers believe that it is the US, on the contrary, that is ruthlessly using Israel – down to the last Israeli – as a battering ram to control Arab oil resources. Its fate would thus follow the fate of Ukraine and other American friends.
However, it is more likely that both countries are controlled by the same globalist cartel, called in the US the Israel Lobby. Its members operate in the public only partially, but they own a significant part of the American media and allocate funds to the election campaigns of more or less all senators and members of the House of Representatives. Some of them have dual nationalities, but the preferred identity is Greater Israel (Eretz Israel). It is not only made up of Jewish Zionists, its larger part is made up of Christian Zionists with a broad background in evangelical communities. And to be consistent, it is not the only one, it seamlessly blends with other cartels, such as the military-industrial, banking, pharmaceutical ones. Thus, their members jointly created a new aristocratic social class of the type of Mussolini’s ”fascio”, which holds the US, Israel and other Western countries under tight control.
Since October, over half a million Jews who had somewhere to go have left Israel. This is almost as many as the number of Palestinians expelled during the Nakba of 1948. The outlook for others is all the more bleak because Israel has burned all the bridges behind it. There is nowhere left to go to.
Facit
One of the hallmarks of psychopathic individuals — and communities — is a headlong fixation on an immediate goal with no plans for what then and what if it doesn’t work out, with complete ignorance of background, context, side effects, and consequences.
Current conflicts illustrate the characteristic. “Mission accomplished,” cheered GW Bush after the defeat of Saddam Hussain. His uncompromising threats to North Korea led to the emergence of another nuclear power. The result of Israeli aggression was the creation of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Axis of Resistance. The consequence of mobbing Iran is that it has become the undisputed leading power in West Asia. Unprecedented sanctions catapulted Russia to the world’s fourth largest economy in purchasing power parity. The identification of Russia and China as the biggest threats has created the BRICS+ bloc the most economically and politically significant global actor. The confiscation of Russian assets and the cutting off of Russia from the international banking system led to the gradual decline of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency and a prospective non-dollar banking system. The unscrupulous arming and support of Ukraine and Israel brought both countries to the brink of extinction. And the quest for totalitarian control of their own society brings even the US itself to the brink of collapse.
The domination of European countries by international power cartels under American domination threatens even Europe with the prospect of war and long-term decline. Logical starting points – gradually detaching from the sinking American Titanic, returning to a Europe of peaceful coexistence, the rule of law, the social market and human rights, and a reorientation towards multipolar politics and economics – run into internal and external obstacles.
Of the internal ones, it is primarily the infiltration of European politics by personalities dependent – pragmatically, career-wise, through corruption, compromise, threats – on power cartels. The role of the fifth column is played by the post-communists, especially the Baltic countries, over which they took control without resistance immediately after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc. However, the attraction of global dominance is not alien to the European cultural tradition of exceptionalism, wars, colonialism and conquest. Finally, decades of ideological indoctrination have shaped the attitudes and, in particular, the fanatical aversion of a significant portion of the European population in favor of Western anti-Russian, anti-Islamic, and anti-Chinese narratives.
The external obstacles are mainly the expected reactions of powerful cartels to the threat of loss of influence. A small sample are the reactions of the European bureaucracy to the dissenting positions of Hungary, Slovakia, or Poland. A more massive movement away from the US is likely to be met – if they are still capable – with the full weight of US resources – from political pressure and economic sanctions to the mobilization of hidden structures to color revolutions and false flag actions.
The whole world, and Europe in particular, is currently in a stage that will decide the developments of the coming decades. Western dominance is being eroded faster and faster by desperate attempts to maintain it. At the same time, it must be admitted that European attitudes can only influence the speed, but not the direction. The only thing it can influence is its own future: Europe as an insignificant relic of bygone times or as an equal partner in a multipolar world.
The weeks and months after November 5th will tell us more.
Russia will respond in kind to the West’s use of the income generated by its frozen central-bank reserves, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov has said.
The US and its allies have blocked an estimated $300 billion in assets belonging to the Russian central bank since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. The bulk of the funds, around €197 billion ($213 billion), are being held at the Brussels-based clearinghouse Euroclear. On Wednesday, Washington announced a decision to use the proceeds from the frozen assets to repay a multibillion-dollar loan to Kiev.
“If Western countries have begun utilizing the income from the frozen Russian reserves, we will do exactly the same,” Siluanov told reporters on Thursday. “We have frozen money from ‘unfriendly’ companies and organizations. We keep this money in our accounts in the same way and will use the income from these assets similarly,” he elaborated.
The income from these funds will be allocated to “the needs of the economy, the needs of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation,” the minister added, noting that the corresponding decisions have already been made.
The US said on Wednesday that it will provide Kiev with a $20 billion loan as part of a broader $50 billion G7 package. The use of windfall profits from the blocked Russian assets will provide Ukraine assistance “without burdening taxpayers,” US President Joe Biden stated.
A day earlier, the European Parliament backed allocating a loan of up to €35 billion ($38 billion) for Kiev using the immobilized Russian assets as collateral for the repayments. According to Euroclear, the frozen funds had generated €3.4 billion ($3.6 billion) in interest as of mid-July.
Russia has repeatedly warned that seizing its assets would amount to “theft” and would violate international law and undermine reserve currencies, the global financial system, and the world economy.
The International Monetary Fund has also been raising concerns that such actions could undermine trust in the Western financial system. Siluanov earlier warned that global players are closely following the story involving the Russian assets and are drawing their own conclusions.
While the finance minister did not elaborate on the amount of Western assets currently held in Russia, previous calculations by RIA Novosti put the figure at roughly equal the size of the Russian funds frozen abroad. The news agency reported that total foreign direct investments in the Russian economy by the EU, G7, Australia, and Switzerland amounted to $288 billion as of the end of 2022.
EU President Ursula von der Leyen just joined the ranks of former Senator John Kerry and other globalist ghouls in declaring war on free speech by perversely proclaiming that the EU citizenry needs to be “vaccinated against disinformation.”
Like every censor in history, she characterizes her censorship program as a means of expunging erroneous information and ideas from public discourse. By using the word “disinformation,” she implies that she and her clique are already the sole possessors of the truth about everything, and that everyone who has and shares heterodox ideas is necessarily in error.
Her entire premise is FALSE for the following reasons:
1). Knowledge about the world is constantly evolving through constant inquiry, discussion, and dissemination. Knowledge is NOT a static thing. This is why countries with stifling censorship regimes have experienced intellectual, scientific, and artistic stagnation. Their rulers try to freeze the human mind in its state at their moment in history.
2). NO state, university, or ecclesiastical committee has ever been in possession of the full truth of any matter. Official orthodoxies have always been challenged by heterodox thinkers. Indeed, virtually every major advance in human insight has been performed by heterodox thinkers.
3). As John Milton observed in his 1644 pamphlet, Areopagitica, contending with error is an intrinsic part of learning and discovery. We literally learn by making mistakes and correcting them. If free speech is suppressed for the objective of preventing the propagation of erroneous thought—or “vaccinating against it”—it will become extremely difficult if not impossible for people to learn and discover.
4). Without a single exception in history, the people who hold power always advocate the orthodoxy that sustains and extends their power and that of their friends and supporters.
Ursula von der Leyen is the quintessence of this principle. As president of the EU, she conducted secret negotiations with Pfizer CEO to purchase a 20 billion Euros of Pfizer’s fraudulent and dangerous vaccine so that it could be inflicted on all the citizens of the European Union. She is currently under criminal investigation for her conduct in this affair that has come to be known as Pfizergate.
It takes a special kind of chutzpah for a powerful state official who is probably guilty of committing a major crime—a crime that has been systematically and ruthlessly concealed—to lecture the public about the need for censorship. The time has come for the citizens of Europe to rid themselves of Ursula von der Leyen and her clique of corrupt tyrants.
To be sure, there is increasing evidence that the Biden Administration has been exerting pressure on Germany—which remains an American vassal state—and the EU to step up its censorship regime. I will cover this strange development in a subsequent post.
Von der Leyen Promises to 'Vaccinate' EU Population Against 'Wrong Thinking'
According to Ursula, who is currently facing a criminal case over the EU government's strange contracts with pharmaceutical companies , people in society who hold views that contradict the globalist… pic.twitter.com/fK0wKV6tUQ
Note that X, rebranded as a “free speech platform,” provides information on platform users to the governments of EU member states in connection with not just illegal speech — and, yes, national legislation in EU countries includes many “speech crimes” — but also legal speech that is deemed “harmful.”
This is the real innovation involved in the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA): It creates an obligation for platforms to take action in the form of “content moderation” against not just illegal content, but also ostensibly harmful content such as “disinformation.” Note that in the period covered in X’s latest “Transparency Report” to the EU on its “content moderation” efforts, nearly 90% of such requests for information on the purveyors of ostensibly “illegal or harmful speech” came from just one country: Germany. See the below chart.
Note that X also takes action against posts or accounts for “illegal or harmful speech” that is reported to it by EU member states or the European Commission. Such action may involve deletion or geo-blocking (“withholding”) of content. But, as the “enforcement options” linked in the report make clear, it can also involve various forms of “visibility filtering” or restricting engagement — “in accordance with our Freedom of Speech, Not Reach enforcement philosophy,” as the report puts it.
Here again, Germany is top of the table, having submitted 42% of all the reports to X on “illegal or harmful speech” and nearly 50% of the reports from member states. See the chart below. Germany submitted nearly twice as many reports as any other member state — France finished a distant second — and over ten times more reports than comparably-sized Italy. The European Commission submitted around 15% of the reports.
It is also notable that Germany submitted by far the most reports on content entailing “negative effects on civic discourse or elections,” yet another category of speech that is clearly not illegal per se but that is deemed “harmful” enough under the DSA regime to require suppression. (Hence, while the content is not per se illegal, it would be illegal for platforms under the DSA not to suppress it. This ambiguity is at the very heart of the DSA censorship regime.) Germany submitted well over half of all such reports and over 60% of the reports from member states.
Finally, it is worth noting that the overwhelming majority of these reports and the related “enforcement actions” undoubtedly involve English-language content. This can be gleaned from the fact that nearly 90% of X’s “content moderation team” consists of English speakers. The “primary language” of 1,535 of the team’s 1,726 members is English, as can be seen in the below chart.
But why should Germany or the EU be accorded any jurisdiction over English-language discourse? Needless to say, Germans are not as a rule native English speakers and only 1.5% of the total EU population has English as their mother tongue.
In any case, two things are very clear from X’s “Transparency Report.” One is that Elon Musk’s “free speech platform” is not that and is in fact devoting enormous resources, both in terms of “trained” human censors and programming, to complying with the EU’s censorship regime. And the other is that Germany is the EU’s — and hence undoubtedly the world’s — undisputed, online censorship champion.
There were 226,350 “enforcement actions” taken by X in response to reports from EU member states or the EU Commission in the reporting period covering barely more than three months. This is to say nothing of the “enforcement actions” taken proactively by X in accordance with its own DSA-compatible terms of service and rules.
Lest readers have trouble reconciling the foregoing with the viral kerfuffle between Elon Musk and Thierry Breton and the famous “proceedings” against X that were initiated under Breton’s leadership, please see Jordi Calvet-Bademunt’s helpful account of the “preliminary findings” of the EU Commission’s investigation here.
According to a new Bloomberg report, EU officials are even contemplating taking into account the revenues of some of Musk’s other companies in calculating a potential fine against him. Needless to say, despite the fact that the sources are unnamed, this has been widely construed as a further escalation in a mammoth free speech struggle between Musk and the EU.
But as Calvet-Bademunt’s analysis shows, the EU’s case against X, as it now stands, has nothing to do with insufficient “content moderation” — or, in other words, censorship — but merely concerns other, more arcane, aspects of the DSA.
Interestingly, the original proceedings opened against X did indeed involve “content moderation” and — believe it or not – could even have had a positive impact on freedom of speech, since X was ostensibly being investigated not for failing to remove or suppress user content, but rather for failing to inform users about such “content moderation decisions” or, in other words, shadowbanning. But, as Calvet-Bademunt shows, this aspect has been dropped from the investigation.
The fact of the matter, in any case, is that no online platform of any size can remain on the EU market and be a “free speech platform.” The DSA makes this impossible.
Robert Kogon is the pen name of a widely-published journalist covering European affairs.
The Group of Seven nations will announce later this month that they will keep Russian assets frozen in their jurisdictions even after the end of hostilities in Ukraine, media reported on Tuesday, citing an Italy-led draft statement.
“We … reaffirm that Russia’s sovereign assets in our jurisdictions will remain immobilized until Russia ends its aggression and pays for the damage it has caused to Ukraine,” the draft of the leaders’ statement, quoted by Nikkei, read.
The G7 intends to guarantee a $50 billion loan for Ukraine, to be repaid by windfall profits from the frozen Russian assets, the news agency said, citing multiple G7 and EU sources.
Last month, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recommended EU member states to consider loaning Ukraine 35 billion euros ($38 billion) that will be repaid with windfall profits earned by Russia’s frozen assets. The proposal was endorsed by the European Parliament earlier on Tuesday. European Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders said that the G7 would announce their contributions to Kiev’s $50 billion loan secured by Russian assets in Washington on October 25.
The European Parliament has approved a €35 billion ($38 billion) loan to Ukraine to be repaid with revenues from frozen Russian assets, according to an official statement on Tuesday. The financing fulfils the EU’s share of a $50 billion aid package for Kiev agreed by G7 countries in June.
MEPs approved the move with 518 votes in favor, 56 against and 61 abstentions, the parliament announced. The funds will be transferred through the end of next year, it added.
Future revenues from frozen Russian Central Bank assets will be made available to Ukraine to service the EU loan and loans from other G7 partners. The statement added that Kiev may also allocate the funds “as it sees fit.”
The proposal was endorsed earlier this month by EU governments. The European Council now plans to adopt it as a regulation, and it will enter into force after its publication in the Official Journal of the EU, the statement notes.
The EU froze approximately €210 billion ($227 billion) in Russian Central Bank assets following the start of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. Russia has denounced the move as “theft.” The immobilized assets had generated €3.4 billion ($3.7 billion) in interest as of mid-July, according to Brussels-based central securities depository Euroclear, which holds most of Russia’s funds. In July, a transfer of €1.5 billion ($1.6 billion) of that money was approved by the European Commission to support Ukraine’s “military capabilities.”
The US is reportedly planning to contribute up to $20 billion to the G7 package, also on condition that the funds are repaid using proceeds generated by the immobilized Russian assets.
The US previously expressed concern that the EU policy of reviewing Russia sanctions every six months makes repayment of the loan uncertain as it could result in a lapse in restrictions. In response, Brussels proposed extending the renewal timeframe to three years. Hungary opposed the idea and said it would delay a decision until after the US presidential election on November 5.
Kiev’s Western backers have been trying to accelerate negotiations over the loan due to mounting concern that Washington’s aid to the country could be cut off if Donald Trump returns to the White House, Financial Times reported last week. The former US president has repeatedly threatened to scale back assistance if he is elected.
Moscow maintains that any seizure of its funds is illegal under international law and would further undermine global trust in the Western financial system.
Moldovan President Maia Sandu must substantiate her claims about “criminal groups” interfering with Sunday’s presidential vote and a referendum on pro-EU constitutional changes, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists on Monday. Such strong accusations should not be made without a hint of proof, he said.
Late on Sunday, when the votes were still being counted, Sandu, who is seeking her second presidential term, claimed in a public statement that there was “clear evidence” of criminal groups supposedly working together with “foreign forces hostile to our national interests” in order to interfere with the voting.
According to the president, those malign forces sought to buy hundreds of thousands of votes in what she described as “fraud of unprecedented scale.” Sandu then vowed to “respond with firm decisions” to the perceived transgressions.
The Moldovan leader did not name any specific groups she believed could be behind the irregularities, nor did she present any specific evidence to back up her claims.
“This is a rather serious accusation,” Peskov said, commenting on the issue. “Some evidence must be presented to the public” to substantiate it, he added. If Sandu believes she had not received votes because of some gangs, she should present clear proof of that, the Kremlin spokesman said, adding that “it would be nice if she explained the number of votes that disagreed with her line.”
“Does she mean that Moldovan citizens who do not support her are associated with criminal groups?” Peskov asked.
Moldovan citizens residing in Western nations, whose ballots were counted last, reportedly tipped the balance in favor of the pro-EU amendments. The ‘yes’ vote gained the support of 50.31% of voters while 49.69% voted against.
Sandu also received a boost to her election performance, with her final result amounting to 42% of the vote, up from the 38% earlier reported by Reuters. Her main rival, the Party of Socialists’ Alexandr Stoianoglo, got 26%. Peskov questioned how such a large change is possible, saying it was “difficult to explain.”
Prior to the vote, the Moldovan authorities claimed they had found evidence of Russian meddling attempts. Police arrested hundreds of people, accusing them of being part of an alleged “vote-buying scheme,” according to AFP. Law enforcement officials also claimed this week that up to a quarter of the ballots could supposedly be “tainted by Russian cash.”
In her post-election statement, Sandu stopped short of pointing the finger at Russia. Brussels still accused Moscow of what it called “unprecedented interference and intimidation” in the wake of the voting.
Since neither of the candidates managed to secure an absolute majority in the Sunday vote, Sandu will face off against Stoianoglo in a runoff on November 3.
Brussels has accused Moscow of pressuring Moldova over its EU integration referendum and presidential election on Sunday.
A constitutional amendment which sets the goal of eventually joining the European Union is poised to pass by a razor-thin margin. Russia has called the vote unfree and described it as suspicious.
On Monday, EU spokesman Peter Stano said, “We noted that this vote took place under unprecedented interference and intimidation by Russia and its proxies aiming to destabilize the democratic processes.”
Early results reported by Moldovan election officials indicated a slight majority of votes cast against the constitutional amendment proposed by pro-Western President Maia Sandu, who is running for a second term in office. During counting overnight, the pro-integration vote pulled into the lead.
Sandu declared victory on the issue after 98.6% of the votes were counted, with preliminary results showing 50.27% of the vote cast in favor and 49.73% against. Moldovan citizens residing in Western nations, whose ballots were counted last, reportedly tipped the balance in favor of the initiative.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Monday that the dynamics of the tally were “difficult to explain.”
“Any observers with basic understanding of political processes can attest to those anomalies with the vote count,” Peskov said. He added that considering Chisinau’s crackdown on the opposition, the reported outcome was significant.
Moscow previously claimed that the Moldovan government restricted the ability of citizens living in Russia to participate in the vote. Only two polling stations worked in the country, with 5,000 ballots available at each, while an estimated 500,000 Moldovan citizens live in Russia, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said earlier this month.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) praised Moldovan officials for the organization of the election, but acknowledged that it had issues with opposition representation. The conditions “did not provide the contestants with a level playing field,” Urszula Gacek, the head of the body’s observer mission, said on Monday.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen visited Moldova earlier this month to meet with Sandu and announce an EU plan to invest €1.8 billion ($1.95bn) in the country’s economy between 2025 and 2027. She urged Moldovans to vote for the president’s proposal.
A recently declassified CIA document prepared in 1983, and released on 20 January 2017, shows that the United States had at the time encouraged Saddam Hussein to attack Syria, which would have led to a vicious conflict between the two countries, thus draining their resources.
The report, which was then prepared by CIA officer Graham Fuller, indicates that the US tried adamantly to convince Saddam to attack Syria under any pretense available, in order to get the two most powerful countries in the Arab East to destroy each other, turning their attention away from the Arab-Israeli conflict. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 